2005 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 8-26-2005 

# U SA v . Enigwe P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 05-2380

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2005 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . E ni gwe " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 649. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/649D P S- 289 NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 05- 2380

________________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. I FEDO O N OB LE ENI GW E, A ppel l ant

_____________________ O n A p p ea l Fro m the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt F o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( E . D . Pa. C r i m . N o. 92- cr - 00257) D i stri ctJudg e: H on orabl e Jan E . D uB ois

_______________________ Subm i t t ed forPoss i bl e Sum m aryA ct i on U n d e r T h ir d C ir c u it L A R 2 7 .4 a n d I.O .P . 1 0 .6

on J une 23, 2005 Be f o r e : RO TH, BA RRY AN D SM I TH, CI RCU I T J UD GES

( Fi l ed: A ugus t26, 2005 )

O P I N I O N

P ER CURI AM I n 1992, I fedoo Eni gw e w as convi ct ed of i m por t i ng her oi n i n vi ol at i on of 21 U .S .C . § 9 6 0 (a ) a n d re late d c rim e s. H e w a s s e n ten c e d to 2 3 5 m o n th s in p riso n . T h is2

C o u rt a f f irm e d h is c o n v ictio n a n d se n ten c e in 1 9 9 4 . T h a t y e a r, E n ig w e f iled a m o tio n to vaca t e hi s s ent ence under28 U . S. C . § 2255, w hi ch w as deni ed. E ni gw e s ought , w i thouts ucce s s , author i zat i on t o fi l e s ever al s econd ors ucce s s i ve § 2255 m ot i ons , and t o r eca l l the mandat e of hi s di r ectappea l . T hi s C our tthen gr ant ed hi s appl i cat i on t o fi l e a s econd ors ucce s s i ve § 2255 mot i on bas ed on A ppr endi v. N ew J er s ey , 120 S. C t . 2348 ( 2000) . T he D i s tr i ctC our tdeni ed the mot i on on the mer i t s , and thi s C our tdeni ed a c ert i fi cat e of a ppeal abi l i ty . E ni gw e s ubs equent l yfi l ed addi t i onal a p p lic a tio n s to f

ile s e c o n d o r s u c c e s s iv e § 2 2 5 5 m o tio n s w ith n o s u c c e s s . T he curr entappea l chal l enges the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s or derdeny i ng E ni gw e’ s m ot i on fo r reco n side rati o n o f th e d en ial o f h is A p p ren d i cl aim , b ase d u p o n the S u p rem e C o u rt ’s deci s i ons i n Schr i r o v. Sum m er l i n, 124 S. C t . 2519 ( 2004) , and B l akel yv. W as hi ngt on, 124 S. C t . 2531 ( 2004) . T he D i s tr i ctC our tdefe rr ed rul i ng on the mot i on unt i l the S u p re m e C o u rt d e c id e d U n ited S tate s v . B o o k e r, 1 2 5 S . C t. 73 8 (2 0 0 5 ), an d th e n d e n ied it o n th e me r i t s a n d g r a n t e d a c e r t i f i c a t e o f a p p e a l a b i l i ty , a f

t e rc o n c l u d i n g th a tE n i g we pr oper l ybr oughthi s m ot i on underFeder al R ul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 60( b) . T he D i s tr i ct C our tnot ed thati thad pr evi ous l yal l ow ed Eni gw e t o pr ocee d underR ul e 60( b) t o s eek r econs i der at i on of the deni al of hi s A ppr endi cl ai m beca us e thi s C our thad rul ed that A E D PA di d notappl yt o t hatcl ai m . See U ni t ed St at es v. E ni gw e, 212 F. Supp. 2d 420, 4 3 0 (E .D . P a . 2 0 0 2 ). AEDP A, h o we v e r , d i d n o ta p p l yt o En i g we ’ s Ap p r e n d i c l a i m b e c a u s e a tth e t i meH ow ever , an appl i cat i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 2244 forauthor i zat i on t o fi l e a 1 sec o n d o r suc ce ssive § 2 2 5 5 m o ti o n raisi n g a B o o k er c lai m w o u ld b e d en ied. S ee In re O lop ad e, 40 3 F . 3 d 1 5 9 , 1 6 0 (20 0 5 ). E ni gw e’ s r eques tfora ce r t i fi cat e of a ppeal abi l i tyi n connec t i on w i th the D i s tr i ct 2 C o u rt ’s d e n ia l o f

h is m o tio n u n d e r F e d e ra l R u le o f C ri m in a l P ro c e d u re 1 2 (b )( 2 ) i s d e n ie d . T he D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s pr ocedur al rul i ng i s corr ect . See Sl ack v. M cD ani el , 529 U . S. 473, 478 ( 2000) . E ni gw e’ s m ot i on forappoi nt m entof couns el al s o i s deni ed. B eca us e the D istric t C o u rt lac k e d ju risd ictio n o v e r th e R u le 6 0 (b ) m o tio n , ap p o in tm e n t o f c o u n se l is n o t w a rr a n te d b a s e d u p o n its g ra n t o f a c e rt if ic a te o f a p p e a la b ility. 3 he s oughtt o fi l e hi s § 2255 m ot i on bas ed upon A ppr endi , he had f i l ed one § 2255 mot i on befor e the ef

fec t i ve dat e of A E D PA , and he c oul d have f i l ed a s econd pe t i t i on underpr eA E D PA l aw . See I n r e M i nar i k, 166 F. 3d 591, 609 ( 3d C i r . 1999) . N ow thatE ni gw e has fi l ed a pos t - A E D PA § 2255 m ot i on, A E D PA appl i es , and anys ubs equentm ot i on chal l engi ng hi s convi ct i on ors ent ence r equi r es the C our t ’ s author i zat i on befor e fi l i ng. A R ul e 60( b) m ot i on i n t hi s cont extm aybe adj udi cat ed on the mer i t s w hen the fac tual pr edi cat e of the mot i on att acks the manneri n w hi ch an e ar l i erhabea s j udgm ent w as pr ocur ed, and notthe under l y i ng convi ct i on. Pr i dgen v. Shannon, 380 F. 3d 721, 727 ( 3d C i r . 2004) , cert . deni ed, 125 S. C t . 1298 ( 2005) . E ni gw e’ s R ul e 60( b) m ot i on, how ever , does notatt ack the mannerof hi s pr i or§ 2255 pr ocee di ng, buthi s under l y i ng s ent ence . I f he w er e t o s ucce ed on hi s cl ai m , hi s s ent ence w oul d be vac at ed. T he pr oper f o ru m f o r th is c laim is a § 2 2 5 5 p ro c e e d in g . S e e id . T h u s, E n ig w e m u st o b tain th is Co u r t ’ s a u th o r i z a t i o n b e f o r e th e Di s tr i c tCo u r tc a n e n t e r t a i n h i s c l a i m. 1 B eca us e the D i s tr i ctC our tl acke d j ur i s di ct i on overE ni gw e’ s R ul e 60( b) m ot i on, w e w il l vac ate the D istri ct C o u rt ’s ord er. 2